Hi Bo -- On 2/13/10 at 1:32 PM, you wrote:
I called Mark and John "an one-eyed leading a blind", but you and Mark beats my supply of "lost" metaphors. Mark speaking about "drive for the supremacy of intellect" not having the faintest idea what the intellectual Q-level means and you chiming in with your notorious criticism of the MOQ. However your attacks are from an open opposition and ten times better than the alleged supporters' misguided tangle.
I'm not sure what you mean by "an open opposition". Yes, I'm critical of certain tenets of the MoQ, specifically the rejection of the subjective self and the positing of Quality as a universal principle independent of man. However, I would really like to see this epistemology reworked, as I believe understanding Quality (Value) as human sensibility and Intellect as conscious reasoning would redeem Pirsig's theory and offer more meaning to guide his followers.
Capitalism, socialism, fascism, nazism ....etc. All "isms" are intellectual (read SOM) terms for political trends. From the MOQ seen the first two matches Q-intellect where "economy" has been isolated and made an object for study, eventually to be improved by some program. Fascism and nazism on the other hand matches social value in the sense of not having any "nomi" or "logi" as their goal, rather to bring existence (in this case Italy and Germany) away from modernity back to some ideal past. (for Italy the Roman and for Germany some "übermenschlisches" mythological past.
I generally avoid discussing politics in this forum, unless it relates in some way to philosophy. In the present discussion, Pirsig's claim that socialism is "more moral and intellectual than capitalism" has surfaced, which has a direct bearing on his philosophy. For me, the most intellectually conceived political document in history is the U.S. Constitution which was designed to ensure individual freedom and the rewards of productivity by limiting the power of government in the private sector. It saddens me that our federal bureaucrats have taken it upon themselves to ignore the Founders' philosophy of human liberty and replace our free enterprise system with a government-controlled socialist state.
You say above that "all '-isms' are intellectual terms." Although it is true that the labels Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism represent our intellectual understanding of these forms of governance, this does not mean that any one of them is "more intellectual" than any other in practice. And while the redistribution of wealth, for example, may be seen by some as a "fairer" policy than allowing citizens to earn their way to prosperity, is artificial equality "more moral" than the free enterprise it discourages? By what standard is penalizing the wealth producers in order to reward the non-productive an intellectual concept?
No one is arguing that we should return to feudalism or a communal society. But why destroy the free republic whose constitutional laws enabled America to achieve the world's most powerful market economy and the highest standard of living for its citizens in two short centuries? Socialism has never worked, except perhaps as a means of nationalizing industry for purposes of war. I'm convinced that, left to the liberal politicians in Washington, egalitarianism and political correctness in the name of "fairness" will yet be the death of us.
There! I've said my piece on the philosophy of government, and I expect the usual attacks from the collectivists here.
Your essay you can stuff, with the most friendliest greetings from Bodvar.
I won't stuff this week's excellent piece by Jack Swift. But I will add it to my Values Page archive, thank you.
Cheers, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
